6 ms·
I sincerely hope the market is not willing to value this sort of deal at a P/E ratio anywhere near 94. Off the top of my head, there is a very well established
by amluto 4mo ago
I sincerely hope the market is not willing to value this sort of deal at a P/E ratio anywhere near 94.
Off the top of my head, there is a very well established business involving buying expensive things and leasing them to the companies that intend to operate them so they can sell services: aircraft leasing.
AER is the biggest player and they have a P/E ratio of, drumroll please, 6. And I expect that GPUs, despite currently looking like an appreciating asset, will actually depreciate faster than aircraft in the long run.
- coke12 4mo agoComparing SpaceX to an aircraft leasing company seems more foolish to me than a 94x multiple. I understand the gist here, but come on. This is a generational company. It’s the only relevant space launch business, and has its tentacles deep in AI infrastructure as well. Maybe the AI bet is foolish — I don’t know — you should short it!
- selfsimilar 4mo agoI would short xAI but the market can remain irrational longer than I can remain solvent. Plus all the foolishness to prop it up with other businesses just seems like bad accounting.
- spwa4 4mo agoI don't think you can short it before the IPO happens. Well, unless you've got a few millions and go to a bank and have them make a product for you specifically. But for normal people, for now, not happening.
- amluto 4mo agoI am comparing SpaceX’s datacenter-and-GPU leasing business to aircraft leasing. It’s possible, and common, for one large company to have multiple business lines, each worthy of a very different P/E multiplier. In principle you end up with a weighted average of some sort. edit: Matt Levine has some great articles about this phenomenon and how some companies try to juice it.
- browningstreet 4mo agoHe can’t do with rockets what he says SpaceX has to do to meet its goals, and he isn’t raising enough money to get the job done either. It’s another misdirection.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Lplololopo 4mo ago'generational company'? Are you on drugs or so? All of Musks business stuff highly depends on first mover advantage. If people now selling it as a 'generational company' than it becomes even more stupid. He didn't invent an unkown solution he is hiding to transform something into gold, he only put a lot of money into rockets. And the rockets right now don't even have enough payload to have unlimited potential. If Space-X knows how to build a rocket very efficient, 10 years later other companies can do that too.
- ben_w 4mo ago> All of Musks business stuff highly depends on first mover advantage. Do they? Out of all of them, I think only one of them really depends on, or even benefits from, first mover advantages: Starlink. Tesla famously gave away all their patents, and is also being overtaken by Chinese companies with cheaper batteries because batteries are the expensive bit; SpaceX rockets are theoretically well protected because national security regulations >> patent law, but even there lots of Chinese clones popping up; TBC and Neuralink and SolarCity are going nowhere fast; Grok wasn't even the first in its field; Twitter/X is not only in heavy decline but was also always trivially cloneable and the clones are now an open source ecosystem of semi-distributed alternatives; xAI has shown ability to make data centres while pissing off locals but the market for those data centres is other AI companies who also commission their own data centres but found themselves scaling much faster than xAI did. (Starlink's first mover advantage is "this orbit already contains a satellite").
- Lplololopo 4mo agoTesla did not gave away its patents. It only says that if you want to use Tesla patents, we can use your patents. Tesla won a lot of by being the first mass produced electric car. Yeah the fact that China overtakes Tesla is a huge problem with Tesla and forces them to spread out. From all Musks hussles, only Tesla Cars and Space-X Starlink make money. These two business are good running businesses, given. But these are not Trillion Dollar valuation companies. Without the hype for these two things, nothing else would be possible.
- BobbyJo 4mo agoP/E is price to earning. Price to revenue is P/S. AER's P/S is like 3, so the discrepancy is much worse than you think. Sidenote: 3 is actually high. 94 is absolutely ridiculous.
- stogot 4mo agoThe question on my mind is-is this IPO designed to rip off recreational passive investors and those of us that invest in retirement accounts?
- l23k4 4mo agoHow would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean?
- HarHarVeryFunny 4mo agoYeah, only a small portion of SpaceX's revenue actually comes from Space (payload delivery). At this point they are basically an ISP (Starlink) and a datacenter/leasing company. It's not clear if Musk (SpaceX/X.ai) is really pursuing AI any more - I expect he hasn't necessarily given up on it, and he hasn't said he has, but it seems he's rented out almost all of his GPUs to Anthropic and Google, so that's not going to be much of a revenue generator, at least for time being. It was in the news not too long ago that Musk was looking to use Samsung to fabricate "AI chips", presumably either for X.ai and/or Tesla, so perhaps he's basically put X.ai on hold until he can reboot his efforts with his own chips (& perhaps a new datacenter)?
- mlinhares 4mo agoGiven the amount of compute rented I doubt there’s anything meaningful left for the people there to do any AI.
- rbanffy 4mo agoThey can use still every spare minute that’s contracted but not actually used. At those scales, that’s absolutely massive, and more computing capacity than most governments have.
- an0malous 4mo agoI’m pretty sure he’s just trying to become the world’s first trillionaire at this point, these deals are obviously gimmicks to boost the SpaceX share price and his less-than-critical-thinking fanbase will happily oblige.
- HarHarVeryFunny 4mo agoYeah, then next move may be to have SpaceX buy Tesla with it's inflated stock, before it collapses.
- austin-cheney 4mo agoAccording to their IPO S-1 draft they are 93% an AI company and 4% a space company. Its the remaining 3% of the company that is profitable, the Starlink stuff.
- crystal_revenge 4mo ago> I sincerely hope the market is not willing to value this sort of deal at a P/E ratio anywhere near 94. It will very likely be valued much, much higher. The SpaceX IPO is, in itself, a marvelous piece of financial engineering (requiring co-operation among multiple actors) which has been a long time in the works. - Right out of the gate nearly all retail investment platforms have dramatically reduced requirements for purchasing an IPO, most notably Fidelity, which previously required $500,000 in your account to participate in an IPO reduced (on Friday) this amount to $2,000 - Retail investment, despite being quieter in the post-WSB era, is at all time highs. - Reports are that the SpaceX IPO is already highly oversubscribed, meaning there are many more retail investors interested than there are shares available. - SpaceX has a wildy low float of only ~4% which means price discovery will be much slower then normal, especially with aforementioned demand - All of these retail platforms enforce some sort of "soft lock-in" whereby you're excluded from future IPOs if you sell your shares within 15-30 days. So if you want to get out you're not going to be able to participate in Anthropic/OpenAI IPOs in a few months. - Coincidentally, most of the major indexes (thankfully excluding the S&P 500) have adjusted their rules to require only 15 days post-IPO before inclusion and have no profitability requirements. Many also adjusted the rules so that low float IPOs have their weight multiplied despite the low float. - Many retirement accounts, in one way or another, are required to track these indexes and will be forced to buy these SpaceX shares at a very likely frenzied price and further drive the price up. SpaceX will very likely open with far more retail demand than shares, the insiders (VCs, employees etc) will still be legally locked from selling, retail investors are penalized if they sell, and so the demand will be high and supply very low. If they can keep this demand hyped for just 3 weeks, price will still be elevated when retirement accounts are forced to buy... roughly the same time retail investor start seeing the penalty for selling expiring (meaning it is not irrational at all to be in the IPO, but it is irrational to sell before being listed in an index). Fun fact: the other fascinating thing about this IPO is the terms for insider lock-in. At first earnings (Jun 30) inside investors unlock and can therefor liquidate 20% of their shares... but if the stock performs well, they can unlock and additional 10%. There are additional rules for continued unlocking of more shares depending on performance as time goes on. So everyone on the inside has a very vested interest in a spike in stock prices: not only will their stocks be worth more, but they can realize that value faster. I would be surprised if SpaceX price doesn't explode in the first few weeks because for everyone involved this would make sense. It's only in August that we'll start seeing the really interesting things start happening.
- chrisgd 4mo agoBut growth rates could make that a bargain. If the market has taught us anything since 2009, it’s don’t underestimate growth
- mattmaroon 4mo agoI don’t think earnings have much to do with any of Elon’s projects’ market caps.
- downrightmike 4mo agoChina just entered the chat, so that 94 multiple will get slashed in the year to come, hence the rush to offload onto retail